In Sea Ice News #14, we noted that the Arctic refreeze was the fastest ever. According to NSIDC, Arctic sea ice extent doubled in October.
Arctic rapidly gaining winter ice
Ice extent doubled in October. The rate of increase since the 2012 minimum was near record, resulting in an October monthly extent 230,000 square kilometers (88,800 square miles) greater than the previous low for the month, which occurred in 2007.
Despite this rapid growth, ice extent remains far below normal as we begin November. Average ice extent for October was 7.00 million square kilometers (2.70 million square miles). This is the second lowest in the satellite record, 230,000 square kilometers (88,800 square miles) above the 2007 record for the month. However, it is 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The East Siberian, Chukchi, and Laptev seas have substantially frozen up. Large areas of the southern Beaufort, Barents and Kara seas remain ice free.
As of November 4, sea ice extent stood at 8.22 million square kilometers (3.17 million square miles). This is 520,000 square kilometers (201,000 square miles) below the extent observed in 2007 on the same date, and ice extent remains 2.04 million square kilometers (788,000 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for this date.
Due to the rapid ice growth during October, Arctic sea ice extent for October 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record, above 2007. Through 2012, the linear rate of decline for October Arctic ice extent over the satellite record is -7.1% per decade.
While overall the Arctic rapidly gained ice throughout October, the rate of ice growth was not the same everywhere. Ice growth in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas averaged about 8,500 square kilometers (3,300 square miles) per day and large areas still remain ice free. In the eastern Arctic there was rapid ice growth in the East Siberian and Laptev seas exceeding, respectively, 28,000 and 18,000 square kilometers per day (11,000 and 7,000 square miles per day). As a result, most of the region is now completely frozen over. The slowest rates of ice growth have occurred in the Kara Sea (less than 3,000 square kilometers, or 1,000 square miles per day). In large part because of extensive open water in the Kara and Barents seas, air temperatures for October in this area at the 925 hPa level (about 3,000 feet above the surface) were 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, with unusual warmth becoming more pronounced near the surface. October air temperatures over the ice-free southern Beaufort Sea were also far above average.
Source: NSIDC
See all the data on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gail Combs says:
November 6, 2012 at 6:35 am
garymount says:
November 6, 2012 at 4:38 am
Sea ice normal is not your normal normal, . . .3 times . . . or even a lot more.”
For the professional weather folks, the word normal has a defined and well accepted definition**, namely, a 30 year average with the last year of the period ending with a ‘0’ (zero). This was never intended to be a big deal, just a reporting thing adopted before digital computers. Those not liking the term as so defined ought to choose a different word.
**See here:
http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=n
And here for the long history – Part 3, page 7:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/WCDMPNo61.pdf
As the cornerstones of the Global Warning Industry get steadily eroded away by logic and facts, there is only one remaining which has stood the test of time:the steadily decreasing amount of late summer Arctic ice cover.
For a sceptic, this is irritating. It does not matter that the Antarctic ice extent is steadily increasing, nor that the impact of increased levels of soot, changing salinity levels, the occasional super storm and variations in sea currents have all had their impacts.
Nor does it matter that intrepid sailors of yesteryear clearly sailed deep into an ice free Arctic, nor that we do not have any reliable Arctic ice extent records prior to the satellite era. .
A melting late Summer Arctic is about the only alarmist argument that stands up to any kind of scrutiny.
There has to be some factor for the decreasing extent of the late summer Arctic ice which we are missing, or perhaps that is the wrong question.
Perhaps the right question is this: why is there any ice at all in late summer in the Arctic Ocean? After all, the Arctic Ocean. is saline, huge rivers deliver enormous amounts of relatively warm water into it in late summer, warm ocean currents flow in from the south and the Arctic is generally much warmer than the Antarctic.
thelastdemocrat
You might want to check your math, 1979-2000 is 21 years….
This is a point I brought up sometime ago, but if the CAGW Gold Standard is 30 years of data, why are they still using the 1979-2000 time frame when they now have data to 2011 and could easily put together an updated data set showing the 1979-2008 data set.
From Jim G on November 6, 2012 at 8:04 am:
Sounds like something J.D. would say, apparently being the gullible sort falling for out-there oddball beliefs. And we should be expecting more of such interviews, as “Climatology” as practiced amongst the (C)AGW-pushers is voodoo science.
Jim G says:
November 6, 2012 at 8:04 am
“This morning NPR (National Politbureau Radio) had a segment on how the melting polar ice is raising ocean levels and endangering Norfolk, VA. Most interesting was an interview piece with someone whose last name (was all I caught) named Salinger who claimed “global warming is slowing down ocean currents” which is part of the problem. What a bastion of modern science over there at NPR. Hope Mitt wins and gets rid of them, Big Bird or no Big Bird.”
Typical scare mongering. Do they ever point out where sea level rise is devasting a particular community? NO. How did mankind ever get to where we are with all the sea level rise in the last 13,000 years? And the notion that artic ice melting or any other sea ice melting will raise sea level? Is that an indication that they believe their audience is too stupid to know the truth about sea ice melting?
When Mitt wins today, (fingers crossed) hopefully bye bye NPR. And while at it, maybe defund some tyranical federal agencies and put a stop to funding the AGW agenda within our federal agencies.
Steven Mosher says
you are wrong.
henry says
You did not get it. For the next two decades it is going to be cold. Very cold.
Those who can read graphs will be able to understand why.
Henry@garymount
You are right.
(two graphs proves energy-in is sinking like a big ship…)
Girma quote Maurice Newman, who said:
“So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period.”
No, that is not what he said. He referred to plague, thermonuclear war, overwhelming pollution, and ecological catastrophe causing the virtual collapse of Britain by the end of the century. Not global cooling. And in any case, why quote someone who is not a climate scientist, and who has never held any position of authority within the climate change scientific community? It would be analogous to listening to the former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a credible authority on this – wait, that’s what you just did.
Seems to me you guys cannot count back 88 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar?
2 graphs that prove arctic ice will be back in the next 2 decades
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying about the cold…
Eric says:
November 6, 2012 at 8:36 am
thelastdemocrat
You might want to check your math, 1979-2000 is 21 years….
Actually, the data set is 22 years being the data is inclusive for the all years 1979 thru 2000. Year 1979 is year 1, another 21 data years added makes the total 22 years of data.
” peter Miller says: November 6, 2012 at 8:34 am
There has to be some factor for the decreasing extent of the late summer Arctic ice which we are missing, or perhaps that is the wrong question. ”
Ocean floor volcanic activity may be cyclical. Just my SWAG.
Hoser says:
November 6, 2012 at 5:28 am
omnologos says:
November 6, 2012 at 3:29 am
Why can’t there be more ice than 100% (unless 100% is defined as the entire surface of the Earth)?
Because per cent means out of 100. It’s all relative to the reference frame. You can’t have 101 people out of 100 with ginger hair!
This is speculative, but a rapid recovery of ice is consistent with the theory that some of the “loss” of sea ice is due to the satellite reading ponds of water on top of ice (melt due to soot) being read as open water. These ponds would re-freeze very rapidly after the melt period ended.
HenryP says: @ur momisugly November 6, 2012 at 9:00 am
Don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying about the cold…
__________________________
Unfortunately our politicians and activist friends are bullheadedly intent on making sure western civilization is stripped of the energy needed to withstand brutish cold. I guess they figure in their warmist fuzzy hearts freezing to death is a faster cleaner death that starvation but they do not want the masses to understand those are the two choices. (Tongue firmly stuck in Paul Ehrlich’s cheek)
The politicians and activists have certainly been very concerned about ‘The Population Bomb’ since the 1970’s so maybe this is the answer they came up with. We will have to ask Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.
No WAIT!
They already have published their recommendations back in 1977. Zombie Times: John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet However that was back in 1977 when the population was only 4,230,768,221 and it is now 6,991,800,919. link Negative Population Growth
(Looney Lew will have to ask John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich about this ‘denier conspiracy’)
/snark
In defense of Milankovitch by Gerard Roe
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington
ABSTRACT
… Basic physical arguments are used to show that, rather than focusing on the absolute global ice volume, it is much more informative to consider the time rate of change of global ice volume.
This paper is looking at 100k year scale but a similar thing can be seen in the last few decades.
Good to see someone involved in published climate science has cottoned on to need to study the rate of change if it’s change you are interested in.
This seems blatantly obvious to me but has largely escaped the notice of the climate comunity obsessed with staring at time series and try to guess how much they are going up and down.
Rate of change of Arctic ice cover vs N. Atlantic temp (AMO)
http://i46.tinypic.com/r7uets.png
WARMISTA WARNING : This graph was created by using ALL the available data rather than just one day per year, so results may be “misleading”.
The Arctic Sea Ice Concentration map (the one comparing 2007 with present) seems to be wrong. Barrow webcam
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam/
evidences more than 50% coverage for second day already, while the map insists ice field being somewhere 100-200 miles offshore.
I will declare it. The climate is flickering. What can it mean? Out of box* thinking needed.
* The AGW / positive feedback / interglacials-are-bad orthodoxy
Check out spaceweather.com ! It had the best, best, best statement “Foresaters have long expected the SolarMax of 2013 to be the weakest of the SpaceAge. It might even be weaker than they thought”.
Absolutely liberal!!!
So when the lack of solar energy reaches the poles, what will the hungarian’s say (humor)!!!
omnologos says: “I would like to see a different metric. ”
How about this one: length of melting season.
http://i45.tinypic.com/27yr1wy.png
Jonny old boy says:
“past that point the volume is subject to too many other factors as we saw this year big time ! ”
This is only problem if you insist on looking at one day of the year to find the minimum. To find the length of melting season I used the ALL daily data and removed the “weather” noise with a 13day gaussian filter.
Even a very short filter like that leaves you with a very smooth annual curve that is not highly dependant on which way the wind was blowing etc. Then by looking at when the rate of change crosses zero you can find the winter max and summer minimum.
Arctic melting season has been getting dramatically shorter in recent years and crossed the 6 month line in 2010.
Both these plots show very clearly that Arctic climate changed behaviour in 2005.
AMO has a dominant 40y pattern, expect 20 years of Arctic ice recovery.
HELP!
I have read occasionally that at high latitudes, the sun angle is so low when the ice seasonlly disappears, that any open water reflects the incoming radiation much like ice. Therefore, any open water at say 75 degrees loses as much heat as it absorbs. I tried to calculate this myself for this specific latitude and time of year and found I was in over my head. Can anyone direct me to where this problem has been calculated? I’d love to know what the heat flux is for this problem. NASA has excellent tables for determining solar angle at various latitudess at different times of the year but I need some help putting it all together. Cruising around the net I could only find claims one way or the other with no actual calculations.
Thanks in advance to the hive
If one chooses 1979 as the norm that is definitely misleading as 1979 followed thirty years of colder weather. Oh I forgot that doesn’t count [sarc]
Steven Mosher says:
November 6, 2012 at 6:03 am
“I expect to see much more ice over the coming years, and no one can say that I am wrong.”–garymount
you are wrong.
No, Mosh-san. He’s right. He really does expect to see much more ice.
p.Solar says
AMO has a dominant 40y pattern, expect 20 years of Arctic ice recovery
henry says
true
\
for the next 2 decades it will be cold. very cold
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Henry@gail
thanks gail. It is indeed 88 years and we are back to where we started.
there is appareently also a 200 year and a 500 year cycle.
I don’t think I wil be able to trail those ones….